Stafford v. Department of the Navy (DoN) Board for Correction of Naval Records et al
Filing
29
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION to Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon that the defendants' MOTION to Transfer 23 be granted and the Clerk of the Court be directed to transfer this case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Defendants' Motion to Transfer, Evidentuary Evidence and Brief in Support 26 be denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LARRY RAY STAFFORD,
Plaintiff,
8:14CV279
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (DON)
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS and SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF
REVIEW BOARDS, Combat-Related
Special Compensation Branch,
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the defendants’, Department of the Navy (DoN)
Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) and Secretary of the Navy Council of
Review Boards, Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Branch, Motion to
Transfer (Filing No. 23). The defendants filed a brief (Filing No. 25) and index of evidence
(Filing No. 24) in support of the motion. The plaintiff, Larry Ray Stafford (Stafford), filed a
Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (Filing No. 26) in response.
The
defendants filed a brief (Filing No. 27) in reply. Thereafter, Stafford filed a reply brief
(Filing No. 28).
This dispute stems from injuries Stafford, a retired veteran of the United States
Marine Corps, sustained on March 4, 1988, when a bunker beam struck Stafford in the
head at the Marine Corps Base in California. See Filing No. 6 - Amended Pro Se Civil
Complaint ¶ II, B. The defendants seek to transfer this case to the United States Court of
Federal Claims because this court does not have jurisdiction under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06, or Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1491.
See Filing No. 23 - Motion. Although originally opposed to transfer of this case, Stafford
now agrees this case should be transferred to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
See Filing No. 28 - Stafford’s Reply.
In order to transfer a civil action to another jurisdiction pursuant to the transfer
statute, three conditions must be satisfied: (1) the transferor court lacks jurisdiction, (2) the
transferee court would have had jurisdiction at the time the original case was filed, and (3)
it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see also
Bernard v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 674 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting the
requirements for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631).
First, the court agrees with the
defendants that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case under either the APA or
Tucker Act. See Suburban Mortg. Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev.,
480 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (discussing the requirements of jurisdiction under the
APA); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with
the United States Court of Federal Claims, of: . . . Any other civil action or claim against
the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount[.]”) (emphasis added). Second, the
court finds the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over this case under the Tucker
Act. See V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir.
2000) (“The Tucker Act . . . vests exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over [claims] in
excess of $10,000 in the Court of Federal Claims.”); Pearl v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl.
301, 308 (2013) (stating the Court of Federal Claims “has jurisdiction over claims against
the United States founded on a money-mandating source of law” and can award retired
pay and change retirement status); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). Lastly, it is in the interest of
justice to transfer Stafford’s claim contesting the denial of CRSC benefits to the Court of
Federal Claims. The court does not fault Stafford for filing the claim in this court and the
defendants do not seek a dismissal of this case, only a transfer. See Gunn v. U.S. Dep’t
of Agric., 118 F.3d 1233, 1240 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting a court can direct transfer when a
plaintiff in good faith filed in the wrong court). Upon consideration,
IT IS RECOMMENDED TO SENIOR JUDGE JOSEPH F. BATAILLON that:
1.
The defendants’ Motion to Transfer (Filing No. 23) be granted and the Clerk
of the Court be directed to transfer this case to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
2.
The plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (Filing No. 26)
be denied.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?